McFadden v. Williams

In this RICO and usury action, the plaintiffs may depose the president of a corporate defendant about matters apart from his employment with the corporation.

Where the plaintiffs allege that the corporate defendants merged to avoid liability, and where the 4th Circuit is currently considering  the defendants’ claim to sovereign immunity, prudence dictates that the president should not be asked in deposition about his role at the company during the pendency of the appeal. If the 4th Circuit affirms the decision rejecting the claim to sovereign immunity, then discovery can be reopened to allow inquiry.

The motion to quash will generally be denied, because the case is now out of kilter due to problems with discovery and delay caused by the broad claims of immunity from discovery interposed by the corporate defendants. And the requested deposition is related to the merits of the claims in a related action. However, the deposition allowed here will not be scheduled until after a pending class certification is decided.

Motion to quash subpoena granted in part and denied in part.

McFadden v. Williams, No. 3:18mc8, Feb. 11, 2019. EDVA at Richmond (Payne).



Categories: Opinions, U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Virginia

Tags: ,

%d bloggers like this: